This essay intends to critique the model of Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) on the basis of the Sturdy and Grey’s article, Beneath and Beyond Organizational Change Management: Exploring Alternatives (2003). This model belongs to strategic Organization Change Management (OCM) and distinguishes between three dimensions of strategic change: content, process and context. This is one of the model from a long list of OCM models starting from work done by Lewin (1951) and goes to show how planning, managing and execution of organisational changes remains a critical aspect in spite of the way the industries and environment has changed since.
In particular, this essay will explore the assumptions underlying the processual model and the criticism of them made by Sturdy and Grey (2003). I will support my arguments with evidence from my experience in my organization to support my critical evaluation. Based on the opportunities identified, I will then discuss an alternative OCM model; proposed by Beer and Nohria (2000) in order to identify how this second model would address possible weaknesses form the Pettigrew model.
I will conclude with my summary and reflection on the above models how I’ve adapted the OCM theory into my current working pattern too to assess viability of each. In the times of frequent changes within most organizations, for the right or wrong reasons but planned with the right intent, a systematic approach to OCM is beneficial to ensure the changes not only land but also deliver sustained outcomes.
Organisational Change: Critique on OCM Model using Sturdy and Grey (2003)
“Change is disturbing when it is done to us, exhilarating when it is done by us”
(Kanter, 1983, p.64)
As Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) express “the administration of vital and operational change for aggressive achievement is a dubious and new process” (p. 108). Essentially, Burnes (2000) contends that the arranged authoritative improvement (OD) approach that gets from Kurt Lewin’s ice 3D square model of progress (unfreezing, changing and refreezing), ruled reasoning from the late 1940s to the mid 1980s. Whilst the earlier model was more linear, Pettigrew and Whipp’s model focuses on that “what (content), how (process) and why (context)” of the change, all of which are interrelated and unpredictable (The Open University,2018). Hence, the model recognises that change is a continuous process involving evolution to stay relevant, current and proactive rather than a linear plan which can be too rigid, irrelevant and reactive at times.
Developmental viewpoint can be transitional, transformational and formative. Transitional change progresses the present state through inconsequential, continuous change in individuals, systems, structures or innovation. Transformational change endeavors results in a fundamental and radical move that rejects existing ideal models (Kuhn. 1970). It implies administration driven alterations of culture, detailing of completely diverse system or requests for similarity because of a merger or obtaining by an overwhelming organization (Derming, 2005).
Pettigrew and Whipp model pays attention to three aspects of change: context, content and process. The key assumptions behind this model can be summarised in four perspectives: 1) Changes are complex, non-linear, processual nature and takes into consideration all contexts of a social system; 2) Changes involve taking a step back and doing a high level analysis which includes both internal i.e. within organisation and external i.e. political and social environment; 3) Changes have iterative processes that is in some part always predictable 4) change has unintended and unpredictable consequences (Caldwell 2005). With this model Pettigrew (1987, 2003) cited in Caldwell (2005, p.93) aims to challenge ‘ahistorical, aproccesual and acontextual’ approaches to organizational change.
Sturdy and Grey (2003) admit that processual models ‘point to greater recognition of the importance of context-action connections, processes, time (The Open University 2018). In their critique they also state that the model of Pettigrew and Whipp continues to be based on assumptions linked to traditional accounts of OCM, such as those of pro-change bias, universalism and managerialism. However, they do also admit that the model tries to integrate the change as work in progress and also to look at an organisational change from both sides; internal and external. The authors also critique that in doing so it does overlook stability to some extent.
To some extent I agree with the critique of Sturdy and Grey (2003) since the model of Pettigrew and Whipp does not seem to completely and ultimately free itself from the assumptions of traditional OCM. Pettigrew (1997, p338) defines the process of changes as ‘a sequence of individual collective events, actions and activities unfolding over time in context’. Whilst this makes the model relevant at most times as is flexible, it is open to becoming ‘too complicated’, unmanageable and not practical enough (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007) to recommend for helping to ensure effective management practices. This model also omits the hierarchical factor and again assumes that there is acceptance of the change across all departments and functions. With the focus on processual changes, there is also less focus on the overall change outcome rigidity which can lead to a power struggle to choose and deliver higher benefit between Shareholder and Stakeholder. In modern organisations, especially PLC (Public Limited Company), this could be a recipe for disaster as the quarterly shareholder results can sometimes destroy the whole organisation. This model, hence, doesn’t focus enough on the financial aspect and options for the organisation to assess the range within which they can model the change and also gauge the risks involved.
Figure 1: Adapted from Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)
I have mapped a recent change within our organisation using the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model as adapted in Figure 1. The change involved removal of manned tills in a famous retail British brand outlets at travel locations and installation of new self-service tills to replace to the extent of 85% tills to be self service compared to manned which was a complete swap from the previous of 85% manned tills. This was a major change as it involved a huge investment in the modern kit and relevant property works. This also involved creating a business case to justify the major overhaul in customer journey, customer experience and brand values. This also involved looking into internal and external factors on how this change will be received by our stakeholders such as clients and customers and also our colleagues. The change would mean changes in work pattern for colleagues i.e. more time spent assisting customers on automatic tills and more time to restock shelves rather than serving on till for the entirety of their shifts. This also meant that there would be a fractional reduction in worked hours so reduction in salary for some colleagues as a result. As covered during the module content so far, it was important to not only communicate the changes effectively to the stakeholders but to do so with a degree of empathy and to ensure their buy-in by making them understand the need for change rather than being viewed like just another cost saving organisational change.
As in Figure 1, the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model, enables to cover all of these changes well. This also enable that there was less stakeholders with uncertainty and lesser resistance from the impacted colleagues both of which are good (Stacey, 1996). However, it misses the emphasis on top level decision makers and most changes that came out meant higher cost of transition, example a longer transition period was agreed than previously budgeted by the finance team after discussion with the colleagues. The change has been implemented and it is currently in the transition phase, while there have been some teething issue on a technical front, the desired change is currently progressing well. Whether it is a success or not will be determined by the final results but currently it has all the early results to suggest a positive outcome.
Organisational Change: Critique on Alternate Model using Sturdy and Grey (2003)
Having used the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model, it was clear that there are weaknesses around the model which was also evident when used for the organisational change example within my experience. To address these weaknesses another OCM model, that by Beer and Nohria (2000) can be used.
- Dimension of Change Theory E (Hard) Theory O (Soft) Combined E & O
- Goals Maximise Shareholder Value Develop organisational capabilities Embrace the paradox of the two
- Leadership Manage Change from top to down Encourage participation from all colleagues Initiate from top and engage
- Focus Emphasise system and service routine Improve employees’ behavior/attitude Focus simultaneously on both
- Process Establish clear timelines and checkpoints Trial and Error – see what works best Pan for spontaneity
- Reward System Motivate through financial incentive Motivate through commitment Incentive to reinforce Vs Drive
- Use of Consultants Consultants analyse data regularly/solutions Consultant support management with reactive problems Use as empowering experts
Figure 2: Adapted from Beer & Nohria’s Theory E and Theory (2000)
As seen in Figure 2, the same organisational change of till replacements has been mapped using the Beer and Nohria model. This helps the hierarchical decision makers to see and choose how they want to combine Theory E and O for the “best” approach having seen the whole range. “E” stands for Economic value and “O” stands for Organisational capability. Beer and Nohria suggest that increasingly ‘shareholder value is the only legitimate measure of corporate success’ (2000, p. 134), but propose that a combination of Theory E and Theory O is the most effective option (The Open University 2018).
As shown in Figure 2, the till replacement OCM model now involves focusing on Economic and human aspects which was missing in the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model. The till replacement change, via this model, now looks at the goal from top level and enables one to weigh the Economic benefit i.e. shareholder return Vs Operational capability pursuit. This shows the range of results for the decision makers and the directors to decide and find the “right” balance to deliver the result for which the whole change has been started from the onset. The same also applies to leadership category where a store manager would be expected to lead and deliver it single handedly the project but there are only a finite number of hours a store manager can work through so there is a clear need for identifying key colleagues in team and empowering them be part of the change at each store level.
Sturdy and Grey (2003), in their article, also critique this model. I agree with the authors’ view that this model does try to move away from the pro-change bias to a certain extent as it shows the range and extent for organisation to gauge Shareholder Vs Stakeholder concerns. However, in adopting this model it promotes managerialism and the power and politics both shifts towards the decision makers. To avoid or atleast demonstrate the how much biased the combined E/O Theory is probably a modification to the model with addition of a 4th column with option to highlight which side the combined E/O Theory is more biased as highlighted in Figure 3. If the information is presented in such a format then it will ensure that in case of biased combined approach, the result is clearly visible.
- Dimension of Change Theory E (Hard) Theory O (Soft) Combined E & O Final Action more E or O
(suggested modification) - Goals Maximise Shareholder Value Develop organisational capabilities Embrace the paradox of the two E
- Leadership Manage Change from top to down Encourage participation from all colleagues Initiate from top and engage O
- Focus Emphasise system and service routine Improve employees’ behavior/attitude Focus simultaneously on both E
- Process Establish clear timelines and checkpoints Trial and Error – see what works best Pan for spontaneity E
- Reward System Motivate through financial incentive Motivate through commitment Incentive to reinforce Vs Drive E/O
- Use of Consultants Consultants analyse data regularly/solutions Consultant support management with reactive problems Use as empowering experts E
Figure 3: Modification suggestion to Beer & Nohria’s Theory E and Theory (2000)
Being part of a PLC organisation, I feel that the shareholder return needs to be factored in whilst pursuing an organisational change as it remains a key in this fast and volatile market with the uncertainty around Brexit leading to failure of even multiple giant high store brands such as Toys R Us, HMV, BHS etc. Hence, understanding the range and risks involved is key before making a balanced decision to act upon.
Summary and Reflection
Organisational change management, being so frequent in the present highly competitive and continuously evolving business environment, has become so critical to get right that it can shape the future any organisation and hence it’s success is key even though as per Sturdy and Grey (2003) nearly 66% of the changes fail to deliver the desired outcome. The essay has talked about my view on the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model utilising the critique by Sturdy and Grey (2003). Mapping this with my organisational change example it further emphasised the need to critically evaluate the OCM models as the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model didn’t cover all required aspects for OCM and had weaknesses within which prompted to approach and utilise another model that of Beer and Nohria (2000). However, once again even though the latter addresses weaknesses of the first model it still doesn’t provide the solution in it’s entirety and there is still a need for further review and tweaks to ensure right approach and action is taken rather than fixing the organisation change reactively.
Having gone through the history of management theories and Organisational change, it is fascinating to see the amount of work that has been put into this key style. Yet, there are no “perfect” models or even “chosen few” methods which can be cascaded and followed through. This re-emphasises the need for diversity in management approach as organisations and individuals vary and the industry has evolved from not just a manufacturing one but also service including virtual organisations (Franks, 1998). Having also reviewed the recent change within the organisation that I’ve discussed in this essay using multiple OCM models has been revolutionary in itself too as it has enabled me to think wider and look at the change not just as another task or another routine change but one that delivers sustained outcome irrespective of how long duration there is before the next organisational change comes along that might impact the one you are working on! However, the proactive plan needs to account for longevity and success of the organisational change plan. I have also read numerous articles and papers and feel like I am exploring management once again but from a fresh perspective.